ambitions in the region because egypt, after all, is the center of the arab world. when it came to gaza, it was always mubarak who called the final shots and not the turks as they wanted to. so, but in the final analysis when it comes to egypt, what the turks do want is to see egypt get back together and reestablish some kind of stability because, again, the long-term interests we egypt is commercial. there were a lot of companies that were doing business in egypt, lots of textile, turkish textile companies had moved to egypt because of lower labor costs. and part of the comments regarding secularism, the fact that the states should be secular which angered some in the muslim brotherhood, i think, had to do with that. it was basically saying, come on, get over it. set up your state and move on.

and i think that's, basically, what the turkish interest is in egypt. yes, the fact that egypt is not a real player in the regional balance of power works to turkish advantage, but it is also they do not want to see egypt crumble or collapse. ..

take a look for us at the relationship between iran and hamas. earlier on receive most of its funding from saudi arabia and then later on later on the iranians managed to take a sense of conditions there and expand its influence in gaza. i think similar situation may emerge in syria which certainly will be a loss for the iranians if assad falls. i think their relationship with the regime is not just limited to assad. it's also in the security apparatus as well as the fact that even if it becomes a loss to iranians it doesn't automatically translate to a win for everyone else. it's most likely syria will turn into yet another one of the regions that will become a proxy

for a major powers to fight each other rather than squarely falling into the capital deals. >> yes? >> henri, you mentioned the crisis that erupted between washington and over turkey's deal with iran on the nuclear issue, particularly the uranium enrichment deal they helped broker with brazil. it seems like when you look at the issue of turkey and the u.s., aside from the obama-erdogan chemistry, turkey stepping away from the iran issue. these being a very vocal advocate for iran. but you mentioned you see sort of things get harder for iran possibly then coming back to turkey. and i'm wondering, what are the conditions for that happening without it again driving a wedge

between washington? how does turkey allow itself to a concert working more closely without endangering its closer relationships with washington? >> look, i think when you look at the washington relationship at the moment, i become everybody will tell you that it has never been so good. large measure has to do with syria. because i suspect this is where we are seeing a great deal of cooperation between the two countries. not only that one and obama talking quite often on this issue, as they have on other questions with respect to the arab spring, but as i said earlier, whatever happens to say, turkey will be critical. land border, the coastal links. so if you are washington and you are doing some contingency planning, you have to be working with the turks constantly.

so there's not that much that's what i think in danger of the american-turkish relationship at the moment. there has been some, but what the armies have done, and there's some accusation in the turkish press and also by turkish officials indirectly that the iranians have, in order to punish the turks, or to send them a signal, kind of supported some of the attacks against turkish military targets, which were quite effective. i think there's a split between hard-liners and moderate ones. the hard-liners have traditionally been more pro-iranian so it is possible the iranians were instrumental in helping. but even there i think the iranians will have to be very, very careful when it comes to that. irena don't want to anger the turks. it's not the turks will do anything against iran.

they have, they want to continue this relationship. there's nothing, its not a zero-sum necessary relationship between iran and turkey. so what happens in syria again that's very, it's very, very difficult to play it out. if there is a turkish intervention is designed to overthrow assad. i think that's what we've seen by iran as a very, very hostile act. but beyond that i don't see anything that will happen. >> next please >> i was wondering what's the sort of situation surrounding hezbollah? i know that saudi arabi >> strongly support the anti-has the units within lebanon, but then is turkey going to be playing a role? will do have some who've influenced of that in the future?

>> i mean, the turks again, when you look at the whole issue of syria, there's not much that hezbollah is involved in. especially if bashir starts to go. and will encourage all anti-hezbollah factions. hezbollah is a weakling and that cannot defend itself. its most powerful actor in lebanon. but it is definitely going to make life very difficult, and they have come out swinging in favor of assad. so there would be, even if there is a regime change in syria, syria is not going to change position on the koran, unsteady for the most part but it will change its position on hezbollah, precisely because of that. but what the turks are worried about, and they did send a warning about, i think 10 days ago, basically both to the

syrians and hezbollah not to do something crazy in the region. because the fear has been that in an act of desperation maybe bashir will use hezbollah. i don't think they will do it. but you can create a scenario in which events happen that engages hezbollah directly or indirectly, and then you have a firefight over lebanon between these guys and hezbollah which may be would work the shears advantage in terms of galvanizing the public may be, or region. so the turks don't want to see that. i mean out as much as they don't like the israelis, the fact is they do not want to see a major confrontation because it will work against the whole region and themselves. [inaudible] >> between? >> hezbollah and --

>> no. in fact, i don't think in the short term that is what they're looking for. in fact, if you take a look at a lot of different things that happen with iran in the last year and a half, they've been struck by stuxnet viruses, assassinations, major sanctions as well as things blowing up left and right around tehran and elsewhere as well. i think the real question is where is the iranian retaliation? i don't think we are seeing any strong signs of any major things they're doing and that raises the question why are they not doing anything? one reason for that may be that the iranians are calculating that at the end of the day, however cost of these sanctions are, however problematic the stuxnet, the assassinations are for them, they can still absorb all of this and still outpace the west when it comes to the nuclear program because it is still continuing. it is continuing slower than it was before but it is still

continuing. but if they risk confrontation, if, the dynamic may change. they could end up in a much worse situation. so at this point i think that may be part of the reasons why they are not. but the question then is how long can they absorb these things without retaliating. and i frankly suspect that these israelis are testing that right now. >> no more questions? okay. let me ask one question to all three panelists. we had met early december a year ago, the region would have been whatever it was then, very normal. mubarak, gadhafi. where would we be a year from now, speculating? would it still be in place? what will the situation be in

morocco, in tunisia? >> a year from them? >> december 2012. you go first. >> i think what's going to override everything is some kind of more serious confrontation with iran. if the west goes ahead with its attempts to squeeze iran on oil exports, i think you're talking about when are they going to retaliate, that this could trigger something. and i know the western governments and the united states are studying in great detail, together with help from the saudis, about how do you shut down, or at least decrease iran's oil sales, without sending prices skyhigh.

and, you know, call it a a journalist who lives in the air, as you go around the region to talk to people, and i just get a feeling that something is going to happen with iran that's going to overshadow whatever, you know, the pro-democracy movement and all these arab countries, and this will force people to choose sides, and either be on, you know, the side of the united states and the west, or the side of iran. >> was a yogi berra who said making predictions is difficult but making predictions about the future is even more difficult? look, let me say that bashir will be gone 12 minutes from now. if he's not, don't ask them why but i don't know. i think he will become but i

think the issue will be chaos in syria and probably chaos in iraq because there's a way in which what is happening in syria is also affecting iraq now. and we see in terms of the way the different communities in iraq are positioned themselves, you know, the government supporting him after all he did in terms of applying -- allowing suicide bombers to cross his country into iraq. by the way, saudi bombers crossed syria into iraq and blowing up shiite targets. so in that sense i think what happened in syria is going to spill over into iraq and not necessarily, naturally will pull in other countries to play the game. but i don't see a major confrontation. i just see more and more chaos in the region. >> yogi berra may have known a lot about making predictions but

he didn't live in the air of c-span. it's much more difficult making predictions live on c-span. i would tend to agree with david. i think the big game changers not necessary although it would be either very big factor. but it is whether something happens between the united states and iran. and david mentioned the oil issue. i think that's a very, very critical issue. i would add a couple of other factors that makes quite explosive and very difficult to control. you have on the other hand the fact that politically it would be far less costly for the israelis if they were to choose to embark on a preemptive military strikes against iran in the midst of an american election year. we've already seen the rhetoric from the republican side. and since the tensions with u.s. over this issue in the past has been a very important factor for israelis to make a decision, i think that's going to be something to watch out for. you also have, of course, the fact that the iranians are now

putting cascades in. and they will probably be operational sometime or completed sometime within the next six months. the israelis are present that as a new red line. there's been plenty of red lines in the past that turned out to be far more pink and red. but this one, in my assessment, actually does have some logical foundation to it because taking out an installment is quite different from taking out, since it is 100 meters or so on the ground, compared to take out the facilities that is above ground. so if they become operational with 3000 or so, and it would bring some, clear alarm bells in washington. and then add to that we still don't have any real sustainable diplomacy the prince about the type of the escalatory mechanisms that ensures that even if there is a complication, that you can bat it back.

i think we should listen to what admiral mullen said just a couple of weeks before he left office, warning about the risk of an accidental war in the persian gulf because iran and the united states do not communicate. they have not communicated. that lack of communication brings about misperceptions which leads to miscalculations which then leads to escalation, as admiral mullen to put. so that to me is the biggest game changer in the region 12 months. >> with that very happy note, let's end of this meeting. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> have you tried the free c-span radio app? is what users are saying. >> the app is fast, easy-to-use and visually appealing and the audio quality is convincingly clear.

>> coming up in about 45 minutes, live here on c-span2, piers morgan will testify before the british inquiry into phone hacking by tabloid newspapers. mr. morgan currently host a talk show on cnn but before that he was editor of the "news of the world," one of the newspapers accused of hacking into the phones of celebrities and crime victims. his testimony live at about 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> republican presidential candidate ron paul tele-town hall meeting last night in manchester, new hampshire.

he continues campaigning in the granite state and is in iowa tomorrow. last nights event was about an hour. >> it's a distinct honor to be here tonight. we do have several distinguished guests with us in attendance. in addition to ever hear who is very distinguished. we have senators tom woods from manchester. center jim forsyth, sender and the sanborn, and senator ray white. we also have this evening with those representatives tammy simmons, mike ball, and matt swank. thank you all for being here tonight for this event. tonight's town hall will consist of a short interview between myself and doctor paul. after that we'll open the hall to your question. we know there are a lot of ron paul supporters here tonight and we thank you very, very much for your support.

we want to encourage undecided voters to ask their questions first. dr. ron paul is a 12 term congressman, and he is without a doubt the champion of liberty in the united states. there's so much i could say to introduce him myself tonight, and there's so much that some of us know and undecided voters will get to know tonight. but consistency, integrity, and adherence to the constitution is all it takes for me to say that i'm glad to call dr. paul my next president and a friend of mine, idaho by the end of tonight you say the same. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. dr. paul, you've been married for 53 years. how did you meet your wife? >> that's an interesting story, and i better make sure i got the numbers right because it's 54. [laughter]

but before, he for i explain that little thing to you, i want to introduce my granddaughters come if they would stand. lisa and linda paul. [applause] >> i did get a couple days off this weekend. i got, as the medevac we had a wedding on this weekend and her older sister got married, and it was on saturday night and the rehearsal dinner was on friday night. grandparents are supposed to be at the rehearsal dinner. but this guy, i think his name is jay leno -- [laughter] he talked me into going out there, but the family was very happy. they watched it, so they didn't hold that against me for not being there. anyway, we had a big weekend, and we are delighted to be here tonight. thank you for coming. but the story about beating my wife is a little bit different, because my first date with her

was when she, was on her birthday and she was four years old. know, her fourth birthday. she was born on leap year, february 29, it was her 16th birthday and we were in high school together. [laughter] it was one of these savvy hawkins dances so the girls got to ask the boys so that's how they got me there. but i tell people well, you know, leap year, you'll have to buy presents every four years. [laughter] i was straightened out rather quickly on that. [laughter] so we were married in my senior year at college, and i knew by that time as going to medical school. i kid, i worked my way through medical school but she worked my way through. no, i worked my way to cause. she worked my way through medical school. [laughter]

>> this year the deficit is 1.7 drunken dollars, trillion with a key. and a debt of about $15 trillion. usually unveiled a dramatic plan to balance the budget in three years. the first year alone you cut $1 trillion. why are you so sure deep cuts will help the economy? >> because government spends too much money. when government spends money, they have a tendency to waste it. is a big difference between government spending money and people spending their money. liberal economists literally teach and preach the whole idea, makes no difference if the people will not spend the money, the government has to. they use this silly argot. they said even if the government spent money paying somebody to dig a hole in the ground and then pay another group to fill up the whole, it would be productive. commonsense tells us that kind of economics can't be productive. because win, and people argued if the government doesn't spend the money, then the money will

come out of the economy, it won't be a stimulus. but the whole thing is if the government doesn't spend money that means that money is left in your hands. people make wiser choices. debt is the big problem. debt burden is the real problem the whole world faces, and it comes out of the consequence of the monetary system because if you didn't have the monetary system we have today where governments can spend money and they can't taxing of or borrow enough then they print this money. this encourages and a lot of debt. finally, though there's stimulus, you can't spend anymore money, the debt is too big. and his later solo that you can't lower interest rates. and everything the government does doesn't restore the confidence because of the debt burden. if an individual gets into so much debt, or e-business gets into so much dead at they can't get their business to grow anymore because they spend all the time paying for the dead and keeping up, the only way they can get growth again or an

individual or family get growth and economic well being is to get rid of the debt. some people liquidate by going bankrupt. other people say i've gone too far, i've too many credit cards, i have too many cars, i have two houses, and they can't keep up. they have to change their way. fantasy number credit cards. i have to work harder. i have to pay down the debt, and then when that debt is liquidated in they can see growth in their productive capacity and have economic growth. governments don't want to do that because politically there's a little bit of a noise because nobody, generally the people don't want anything that and, therefore, the politicians don't want to cut. they keep spending and spending until we get to the point where we are today and it's just unbearable. still today in washington that biggest problem there is even though they're bringing the message to people like you,

spending is today, deficit is today, deficit is too big, that debt is too big, there's no serious effort to do anything about it. they give lip service, they talk about the congress should do this, if they don't get we will have a supercommittee and they should do this. and even the proposals they talk about, they are not even touching on cutting anything. the supercommittee, if we didn't pass the budget, the supercommittee was supposed to meet and if they didn't come up with it is going to be an automatic cut of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, but none of it would start until 2013. the amount of money that would be cut over a ten-year period, if they would do it, would be not even enough to cover the debt, you know, every month we run up $100 billion of debt. so it doesn't even touch it so they're not serious about it. this is what i introduced this

program trying to emphasize the point that you just can't keep promising people we're going to spend money and deficits don't matter, but you have to cut it in my proposal fell, i tried to do it with a plan that you don't put people out industries, people who, very dependent on government even though they should never gone that way, there's a lot of people, the elderly and the medical programs, people are very dependent, and you can still work your way out of it, you'll change, if we as a country where change our attitude about what the ultimate goal of government is. to me, goal of government should be very limited. that is, to protect your freedoms. [applause] >> but the big problem though is i tried to come up with cuts to balance the budget watcher, but most of the cuts come in the first year. $1 trillion in one year. but we have to have a changed attitude about what we should be

doing as a country and as a government. and where i start are where i think it should be the easiest come if people say yes, it is too much this debt is a problem, we need to change it, i go after overseas spending. i would cut $500 billion from overseas spending. i'm sick and tired of people like you being drained to be the policeman of the world, get involved all around the world, bring our troops home and get over and done with all these wars. we could save a lot of money. [applause] >> the other savings comes in getting rid of fire departments, and that's a fair start. and then also to go back to the budget levels of 2006. so that was a opposite of what they do in washington. they have baseline budgeting which guarantees this growth, and if they decreased the growth

a little bit, they call etiquette. so i say that's too much deception so what have to do is cut. i would go back for almost all the programs, the 2006. government in 2006 was into small thing. it was plenty big enough, but that's what we have to be done. if not the consequence is so serious. having, it is, to use the debt will continue to explode. the printing of money will explode. you have a lot more inflation. no matter what the government does is not going to work. we're sort of against it right now because the government keeps trying but just think of how the standard of living has gone down for so many people. middle-class is being diminished. standard of living is going down. people on social security, their prices are going up. they are losing. so you can print money and keep passing out. but if the prices go up you lose it all. we're only at the beginning. you can't create trillions of dollars and think that that will

not have an effect. and so far it's had a minimal effect. that's why i am convinced that you have to cut spending. and they don't think, i don't see this as a sacrifice. people have gotten bailouts, they might have to sacrifice because i'm tired of bailing out people. we shouldn't be bailing out people. but if you get more of your freedom back, a chance to have your taxes lowered, of course my goal is to get rid of income tax. i think it would be a good thing for everybody. [applause] but if there were less regulations and less interference in our personal lives and stopping all these wars, to me that isn't a sacrifice. i mean, coming around to commonsense. and fortunately the american people are shifting the ideas, coming in this direction, they realize how serious it is. the young people are leading the charge, and i like that, too.

[applause] >> thank you, thank you. you did touch on the military interventions, and you are a veteran in the air force. and given that experience and given your experience in foreign policy, what would you do to make sure we have a strong national defense? >> a strong national defense is key. defense of liberty is the main purpose but strong national defense is part of that. and that is a precise function of the federal government is proscribed is the state do not to be involved in having armies. unit, to ride the national defense. the national, i think our defense are down when we spread ourselves so thinly around the world. we are in 130 countries, 900 bases, it's an economic burden for us. we have to remember a rather recent empire that bit the dust but it was the soviet empire. they were so foolish they went

into afghanistan and had a war. [laughter] so it's an economic consequence of the foreign policy but it also creates problems for us. how does having our troops all around the world actually defend us here? and more precisely, we have lost lives and a lot of money. worrying about where the boundary is between afghanistan and pakistan is. at the same time we don't worry enough about our own borders around here. [applause] >> so i think our defense is diminished. what i'm proud of is the fact that the military had been very supportive of our campaign. when you look at the donations, we get over twice as much money from active military people than all the other candidates put together. that means the military is

looking at what i'm talking about and they don't feel exactly excited about what's going on. it would be nice to say that maybe there turning the corner and we come home from iraq and that war is over but i don't think i can report that to you. that's not my ss the. yes, some troops cannot. the industry is there. 17,000 contractors and state department people will be in the embassy. we are all around iraq at we haven't changed our policy. so for having a strong national defense we have to have a different policy, the policy should be designed to defend this country, not to pretend that we can police the world and not that we can buy friends either by foreign aid or force them to be our friends by taking them over and bombing them and insisting or installing dictators. we've been doing it for long time and it's not good for us. we want a strong national defense. we have to change the policy. the mood right now is since the

cold war ended, the declaration was that we have to spread our exceptionalism around the world, therefore we have this obligation to do everybody to live like we do and have elections and do these things. the trouble is when they have the elections and they don't elect the people we want, we ignore them or we throw them out of office. and sometimes we still, take for instance, this undermines our national defense when we support like sharia type dictators in saudi arabia. i mean, there's a lot of resentment from that. i happen to think our country is exceptional but i don't believe we are a good country if we have exceptional five years that you spread them either by bribing people or bombing people. we should set a good example where people would want to emulate it. we should have peace and prosperity and say the americans are doing it right, the more

like americans. that's the only way i think we can spread our exceptionalism. [applause] >> thank you. and one final question from me before move to the audience is how do you compare the european debt crisis to our own debt crisis? >> the european debt crisis is very, very dangerous, and they are going to have to have a climactic ending before we will but it's all intertwined. in 1971, the last link of our dollar, that was when the bretton wood agreement broke down, it meant that we as americans could print dollars as if they were gold and the world, unbelievably, kept accepting it, and they still do. so we ship out dollars and they put it in the bank like gold, and then they build their monetary system on our dollars. so all these years we've had

some benefit from this, where our best export is paper money so we get cheap export. the whole problem is financial it's not a good deal because our jobs go overseas because it's cheaper, it seems a good idea to print money. but because they prop up their currencies around the world, they are in big trouble, but the world is still trusting the dollar and we're on the verge of bailing out europe. the european union has only been, the euro has only been around for 10 years, and it looks like it's in big trouble. bernanke, the rest of them promised we will bail them out, or like it was in a way. you don't bail out the banks and bankrupt corporations. so that's what did you. they build up a few. they do that in foreign policy as was economic policy to get people frightful so they go

along with what they want to do. right now the courses we will bail out europe ear the only thing that will stop it, they will continue to do that, confidence when it is lost, whether in europe or here, if they pull it off where they can -- we bail out europe, it just puts more and more pressure on us until finally the world will reject the dollar. if this could work forever, the americans wouldn't have to work again. we just print money, you know? but that's not the way economics works. even this past week i was looking at how much foreigners are holding our debt to get what is a trend or not i don't know but there was a big drop in the amount of debt foreigners were holding this year. so that's what will happen. they will quit buying our debt and that will eventually push our interest rates. what's happening in europe is

very, very important right now, and it's trying to prop up a system that is unworkable. it cannot work. >> thank you. at this time are going to open up to discussions to your questions. and again we encourage questions to come from those of you who are undecided voters. so undecided voters, please, this is a great opportunity to ask your question to dr. paul. >> hi, dr. paul. >> it works better that way. [laughter] >> okay. hi, dr. paul. my name is hannah. i personally, along with 25% of the country, did not identify with any particular religion. i understand your core principle of religion and i support you greatly in that. would you support any legislation that is religiously

motivated but cannot be staunchly defended on secular reasons as well? >> probably depends on what you're talking to because somebody might accuse you of saying that you shouldn't murder somebody that's religious, you know. but any issue of violence i think the government should be involved but when it comes to regulation, no, there's nothing the government should be involved. the first amendment is very, very clear. the congress you write no flaws with the establishment of religion. there shouldn't be prohibitions either. and i used as a whole lot as an example of how we should look at civil liberties because basically in religion we do a pretty good job. i bet there's a lot of different religion values in this room and some who just don't want any particular religious values. that's what we've been provided. you don't have to make those decisions. the government shouldn't make these decisions. we are pretty tolerant on what our intellectual lives should be. you can read books and even when

communism was a real threat, we still have books on communism. we didn't prevent people from doing it. but we rarely apply that same principle to personal lifestyles. you know, personal habits, because they're afraid some people's personal habits might not be good and we have to watch them. they might drink too much or spoke to much at all these other things. so they don't give, give the people the same type of protection. at the federal government definitely should not be involved in regulating anything with religious values, and they shouldn't be involved in intellectual matters but i don't think they should do it in personal habits be there. a lot of people say that they might go out and gamble and this would be bad for them and all this. but if you legalize something, if you legalize religious choices that doesn't mean we endorse it. i want everybody to make their

own choice as long as they don't hurt other people. i don't endorse what they do with the religious freedom but what you do with your personal liberties with your own habits, i don't endorse what you do. this is why freedom is so miraculous. it brings people together. people of different religious values different intellectual interests and different personal habits, people come together because what we want to protect is that principle of liberty. that's what they our country great. something happened along the way because today you don't have a concise understanding of what freedom is about. some people are a little better on personal liberties and religious liberties and at the same time another group will be better on economic liberties. but it should be one and the same. if you have a right to life, a right to your liberties, you ought to defend personal liberties as equal, you know, to economic liberties. that is, one of my goals is probably trying to bring people together.

the federal government should be writing laws on regulation. pashtun shouldn't be writing laws on regulation. >> hi, dr. paul. i know you said before that you would not use the executive order unless you absolutely have to, you know, one of those things. but i'm wondering with all the unconstitutional laws and bills that passed lately, would you consider using it to undo all the bad that they have done? [applause] >> if not, is there some way out of this mess? that you could do. >> believe in, a lot of authority a president can do to unwind this. take for instance, the executive orders, they've been abused. executive orders should be used properly for the president to do

his prescribed duties. like to write an executive order if you say it's time to bring the troops home. the president can do that see right an executive order and that's okay. in executive order that was written by previous president which was nothing more than legislation yes. my belief is that i could write an executive order and cancel out that executive order. [laughter] you're happy about that. but also what about the regulations the executive branch rights? was the executive branch get this privilege of writing the law? all regulation as far as i'm concerned are unconstitutional, too. only congress should write the laws. if i don't like what they do, you veto it. so that's a pretty good start. and i would notendorsed the principle of a signing statement. presents come along and see this looks pretty good but i'm going to sign this, i'm not going to follow this part. that is sort of a line-item veto which the president doesn't have. what you do with those, if you

think it's pretty but you don't want to endorse something that you consider bad, you should veto the bill. but there is a whole lot to do on other times, you have to work with congress, but right there that's a handful, fiscal. you have a lot of things you could do you think that executive power in a proper manner. >> hi. thank so much for taking my question. i have a question about health care. 33% of children and united states are on medicaid and another 10% are uninsured. you know, you have offered charity by doctors as a solution to this. do you really think that 43% of america's children will be cared for through charity?

>> through what? >> through charities. >> she's talking, asking about what i'm talking about, there's so much, sony people dependent on medical care. idea with that in the budget, and i also qualify it when i announced i want to cut all the spinning but i want to preserve certain programs, i would have priorities, the elderly, medical care, care for the children. that doesn't mean that i thought it was great idea because this is why we are in a mess because social security has no money in the bank. so it's going to take a lot of work cutting and working our way out of this. when i got out of medical school in 1961, i practice for a couple of years before there was medicaid. i worked in a catholic hospital, and did make hardly any money. nobody was turned away. people were treated, and back in those days people were not linked industry with no medical care. doctors always charged the

least. with governments coming in these programs that are not, they are totally bankrupt, everybody charges the most that everybody from the doctors to the labs to the hospital. in texas you have a lot of illegal aliens coming. they have a baby. that babies are put on welfare rolls. the parents qualify because the hospitals need the money because costs are going up. it's just a real mess. as far as i said it's been created by government. so i would try to work out of this, but i would want to transition. so some of you if you see, you know, this is not the way, i don't want to be totally dependent on the government, i want to really promote these medical savings accounts so people can put their money aside, get off their taxes and buy their own insurance and pay cash to the doctor. you need to get the doctor-patient relationship back again. but it is a problem because there is dependency but as the

economy gets worse that gets worse. if you took the food stamp issue, you know, it wasn't too long ago, 40 million people on food stamps now. then later on, 44. last week its 46. so what we have created is a catch-22. the worst thing, the more you need to spend what is medical care or food stamps or whatever, and our country gets poor. our jobs are gone. we can't raise taxes so the only thing is back to printing the money and borrowing the money but it's not going to last. i'm convinced we can do it and we could work it out but i'm not overly confident the way we are going, but i think the calamity is we hear about anybody we have to avoid is major crises where 2008 is going to look rather minor. i think that's what we're moving toward. that's why one, can't we agree on at least change your attitude

about spending all this money overseas and try to take care is some of these problems at home? [inaudible] >> what? avec. >> jamin -- win? right now, this minute? you mean, okay, i said i described us in transition and they would be taken care. those funds in my budget takes care of them so they will get care. but you talking about when you have a free society once again how will they be taken care? why don't we do before how this country survive before 1965. [applause] >> when i worked in the hospital in 1962, not that long ago, i worked for $3 an hour. like i am a medical practice my office call was $5 an hour. but now you can more than that, don't you got to go see a doctor. you pay that much to park or something like that.

but the cost goes up because the government is involved. when you destroy the value of money, prices go up more in areas the government gets involved in. they are involved in housing. prices exploded. they're very much involved in education. what has happened to the cost of education? does the call to go of? know, the price skyrockets. young people can't pay it is so gifted easy loans so they graduate with a trillion dollars worth of debt and no jobs. medicine is very similar. the price goes up and it's very difficult for that to happen, for people to make is that i know of the problem. we have these legal problems where doctors over order because of litigation as part of the problem. it's really inflation and doing away with competition. we need more competition in medicine.

people, when you have these medical programs, always want to help people. humanitarian instinct. whether it's republicans program for prescription health programs, guess who does the lobbying? the drug coverage and interest company's. they run the show. we got obamnicare. don't you think and lobbied? the drug companies. so i'm convinced because i'm sure you have sincere humanitarian instincts and your question reveals this, however going to take care people. what i've come to the conclusi conclusion, being in medicine and being in politics, if you're a humanitarian, you want to care about people, you better free up the system. provide a lot more for people than doing it through the government. when a country destroys its currency, one of the characteristics is you wipe out the middle class. money goes for middle class to the wealthy. what is happening today? the middle class is getting

smaller. the wall street as our student eating their bailout to have all the advantages of the multisystem because they get money first. they get the money, they have value, they spin and circulate it and prices go up and you can't afford medical care. so i believe that one of the short -- libertarianism and conservatism is in disrepair expose yourself on this very point because it sounds like you are cold hearted, you care about people, the government is not going to take care of us. but who is the government? if someone here wants to come to take care of them, you are the government. someone has to go and shuffle the cards. this is the wonderful thing about america. we've had the best experiment ever in history of the world, the freest markets, the largest middle-class ever, the greatest prosperity went down the tubes. we're going to witness the

disintegration of if we don't do something about it real soon applaud the. [applause] >> hello, everyone. hello, dr. paul. with the death of north korean president, as a present we you remove our troops from the region? >> i didn't hear your first sentence. >> with the death of the north korea president, jim jong-il, will you still remove the troops from south korea? >> sure. i don't think the new guys going to be anymore -- he doesn't look like he has a whole lot of talented to me. [laughter] this looks like a wonderful opportunity. the world is changing. they have a new leader up there and the south koreans have about what, 10, 20 times gdp of north korean? what are we doing over there? why don't we have those military

personnel back you're spending their money here in this country? i would bring them home from south korea. i would bring them home from japan. i bring them home from germany and the middle east. and we would be stronger for it. because great nations don't get defeated it usually militarily. they get defeated from a bad economic policies are as a matter of fact, liberties are more destroyed by people's own government more so than somebody invading. i fear of the loss of my personal liberties more by the government that idea by somebody invading our country and all of a sudden starting to regulate us. i would bring them home, the sooner the better. [applause] >> hi, dr. paul. my question is regarding the jones act, which was created to protect cargo coming into and

out of the united states, and protect jobs for american sailors. so view it as protection is but it has created essentially middle-class jobs. and we see across the board with i.t. jobs are getting shipped over to india, pakistan. and you can list all kinds of jobs that have been shipped overseas. do you support the jones act, and would you create something to i guess essentially shore up more jobs stateside for folks? >> basically without, you know, rereading the jones act and knowing every detail, i have dealt with it to a degree because i have the ships coming in and out and to complain about all the time to even though it was well intended to protect american jobs, it really backfired, a lot of unintended consequences. to me it interferes with the marketplace so unless there's

something very, very special in the necessary i basically have had the position that i would would repeal most of it is not all of it because i think we would be better off for that. but it was supposed to protect american jobs but what it does is it chases a lot of vessels away and they have, it's very complicated. i can exactly what happened, but if you're in one city come in new orleans you can't stop in galveston to kuwait and it might get. so a former can do but american ships can't do it. it's a real mess. the market, it does not enhance the markets so i would be for repeating most of it if not all of it. >> high, dr. paul. so, a couple years ago we had a really bad ice storm up here, and just red holloway had

another snow storm. and i was without power for a while. and i really wondered why the power companies did absolutely nothing to do preventative maintenance to stop this ahead of time. and it wasn't until i talked with somebody he worked in the power industry, and they said well, why would they do any preventative maintenance? because what happens is we have a big storm, all the power lines go down, transformers explode and then fema comes in and pays for new transformers and pays for all the overtime and everything. so the end result is we as taxpayers pay a lot of money and we get a service that is actually worse off than we had we not pay the tax dollars in the first place. so, how do we get aroundhim had we we stop this insanity? you know, how do we fight against this when you know, your opponents are going to stand up and say, call you heartless and

uninformed voters are going to stand up and say, you know, ron paul does not care about ice storm people. [laughter] >> and so how do we stop this? >> i thought i heard all the stories about fema but that's a new one. that's a great. that's another great example, but i know a lot about fema from a practical viewpoint because i have 200 miles of coastlines in texas, and galveston and that every and we get hurricanes quite frequently. i was in congress in 1976 and i always argued against fema. bad economic policy but if every hurricane why do you pay me to rebuild my beach house. and also, what it does, people do things differently, like indicated, why fix it when i'm going to get the government to do at? as if the government is magic, it's just some of the neighbor in another state.

but on the coast what they teach you to do is, if you're not, if you don't go along with fema insurance and the flood insurance they say you don't care or you know that the people what's going to happen. what would they do if they did have the government subsidizing your insurance? they go we can't afford. what is that telling you? its dangers. if it's dangerous and reliable have your house of a way, why should we dump it on the taxpayer? we encourage people to build and the wrong place so people build property, the agitator was, i will build my house a little better, or i will pay more for my insurance instead they are some people in houston, i think they're trying to stop it. they have had their houses flooded three, four different times. they come in and rebuild and over and over again. the unintended consequences when the government gets involved. but i eventually won this argument in my district because i take a very strong stand on. i vote against it, and, but when

a hurricane comes in and the program is there and we had to pay into it, you know, most of the complaints are about fema. so i go to bat for them, because fema is holding things up. they can't get anything done. theme it becomes the dictator. they come in, and it was one flood where fema was keeping out the red cross. they wouldn't let the red cross coming. they take over, you know, what the department of homeland security and fear, they took over all the police activity. katrina was a disaster what they did. they came in and started confiscating guns. there's no constitutional authority for the government to be doing this, no matter how well intended. it's not been around that long, and it teaches people to take risks they shouldn't take. if you take a risk you should be responsible for your risk. interesting story. glad to hear that one. [applause]

>> hi, dr. paul. i like a lot of what you say but i like a lot of what a lot of politicians say. so the question that i have four is the question i have for every politician this year. how are you going to get congress to work with you? i am so sick of bipartisan this and bipartisan that. if you belong to a party, how you going to get congress to do what you say we need to do? >> i think it is the key, it is the key question. and i'm going to start off by saying something because i'm going to challenges, but let me finish the story. my challenge is we got into this mess because we had too much bipartisanship. you know, because the right and left get together and they want to spend money. somebody wants a war over and somebody wants all this wealth here, so liberals and conservatives get together and they say well, we will tax

people, we will borrow and will have this federal reserve, they will print money and will get away with it for a long time. so they got together. i demonstrate it in medicine. republicans, democrats, they let the lobbyists controlled and. so yes, they have been too much, but you're right, we still need a joint effort of a bipartisan effort, but i think it should be getting them to, by you giving half of your promises a way, why don't we bring people together as coalition? ..

>> the other thing that should encourage you, if we ever get to this point where you have the right kind of president, you need to bring people together, you can say, well, this is a vet, tonight let -- this is a secret, don't let it out, turn off the cameras. a lot of people in washington don't have a whole lot of principles. [laughter] [applause] but that's the way the world works. so, therefore, they respond to you. if they think their job is in jeopardy by not, you know, if they don't do what you want, and this is why whether it's the occupy movement or tea party movement, that's a message they're starting to receive and sort out. there's not enough there to bring about the changes. but, so, ultimately, government is a reflection of the people. and the people are a reflection of a prevailing attitude, a

philosophic attitude. seventy years now, most all of us have been taught keynesian economics, taught this idea that spending money is the most important thing even if you're deeply in debt. so, but that is what is changing now. so you have to change people's attitudes. congress will reflect that. but in the meantime, you want to work and bring coalitions together, and, you know, a president's vetoing bill, all you have to do is get bud des with a third of the -- buddies with a third of the congress in order to do this, to cut back. but, obviously, it is a stalemate there because, like i started off with, they do not admit that spending is a problem. they're giving you lip service, but if they thought it was half or one-tenth as serious as i think it is, believe me, they would be cutting instead of this proposal and deception that they're panning off on the people. >> this'll have to be our last question. can we get one from the back someplace there, anybody in the back have a question?

i don't see one hand up back there. maybe we're done. [inaudible conversations] >> we need a mic. >> dr. paul, my name's alex, and one thing i've been following in the news recently that's been kind of alarming me is this national defense authorization act. i'd like to know some of your thoughts on it, and i would hope they'd be in line with my fear of this, please. [applause] >> i'm always pleased to get questions like this because my complaint is this stuff goes through, and be nobody knows about it. so when somebody knows about it -- [inaudible conversations] >> i think that's fantastic. and it's out of self-defense. you'd better know about it because if you ask me, or they were asking me, or i saw in the paper about what the most

important event of the 20th century was or last year. last year -- the biggest news story. the biggest news story was bin laden being killed. but i think what you're talking about is a much bigger story. and represents a significant change. what he's talking about is the defense authorization act. in the house they were tinkering with the words, with signing the law after 9/11 to go after al-qaeda. people responsible for 9/11. i supported that. but that morphed into going after all terrorists around the world and invading countries. that was gross distortion of that authority. so instead some of us wanted to eliminate the authority because bin laden's done, and, you know, they've abused it. but, no, instead of that they put in the house, they added it -- not only had the al-qaeda, they added the

taliban. and the taliban are people not making plans to come here. the taliban is mainly motivated to keep people out of their country. matter of fact, our current government right now is starting to talk, talk to the taliban. so what was changed in the house was said that anybody, it was a taliban plus associated forces. associated forces mean that if you happen to visit a web site that is controversial or maybe attended a mosque or something like that and somebody in that mosque was a bad guy and you were associated, that you would be, you know, subject to being arrested. but when the senate got it, they said that they could be arrested by the military. military and taken in. and some of the senators on the house floor bragged when we get

one of those guys and they ask for a lawyer, just tell 'em no lawyer for you. and these are just suspects. and this is on top of last february when the president announced that as a national policy that the president's allowed to assassinate american citizens without a trial or charges made. and it's happened three times already. but you say, people say, well, yeah, but that awlaki, he was a bad guy. but what about, what about his son who was 16 years old? he was the second target. oh, we didn't know he was so young. i mean, this, this is really, really bad. and it, it got passed this week. the senate made it worse, it came back to the house, and there was no chance of stopping it. and the president was anxious to have it. no, that is, that is major, it's very, very dangerous. we've, essentially, repealed our bill of rights and the patriot

act -- which i think should have never been passed -- repealed the fourth amendment. this, essentially, repeals the fifth amendment. this, and it's also, freedom, the ideas of freedom developed slowly over many centuries, and this, they were trying to establish some of these principles with the magna carta, 1215. we're throwing it out the window. so i'm glad you're interested, and i'm glad you know about it. i sure wish something more could have been done about it. check and see how your representatives voted. that might not hurt anything. [inaudible conversations] >> and that americans are exempt. >> oh, yeah. that's what they're using. that is not, that is not true. americans are, they are -- >> [inaudible] >> they say, the president -- no, american citizens, no, this is designed for american citizens. they are not exempt. no.

it includes american citizens. >> what are -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> you know, too bad that getting rid of and your turnover up here is rather easy to do. i wish it were that easy in washington. it has to be the election. i mean, if they really, if they really get out of hand, you know, you can, congress can throw a person out. but who are they going to throw out when they're all guilty? not all, not all. [laughter] [applause] >> okay, folks. we're going to, we're going to wrap this up, and we tried to keep it as orderly as we possibly can recognizing that there's a lot of supporters here. what we'd like to do, the congressman is going to be

available for pictures, and we just want to do pictures tonight. no autographs. it's going to be 9:00 before we do get out of here. so folks that are interested in that are going to go straight through that exit door where we're going to have a rope line. folks who want to bypass that can go to my right out that exit. all the way down the hallway, hang a right and go down to that door to exit. give us a chance to get to the back, please, as -- >> are we going this way or around -- okay. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> he wanted me to tell you guys -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> starting shortly here on c-span2, piers morgan testifying before the british inquiry into phone hacking by tabloid newspapers. mr. morgan currently hosts a talk show on cnn, but before that he was editor of "news of the world," one of the newspapers accused of hacking into the phones of celebrities and crime victims. his testimony is coming up shortly, and we'll have it live for you here on c-span2. until then, headlines and viewer calls from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: bob, a republican in ohio. go ahead. >> caller: well, in the real working world, we put in the hours until we get the job done. and the way i look at it, they

should be there during the holidays, new year's and beyond 12 hours a day to get what this country needs done however it may fall on the republican or democrat side. if they know they've got to be there, they're going to learn to get it done. >> host: so, bob, right now are you -- which plan are you favoring? >> caller: you know, i think this country has been through enough. well, we'll send something through, and we'll work on it later. i think they need to get it done for a year. i mean, there are other things they've got to get done too. i think they should have to work through the holidays because they're not getting their job done. >> host: okay. let's hear from a democrat. leonard in maryland. morning. >> caller: good morning. um, i agree with the previous caller. i, um, i think that we're required to complete our jobs, and whether they vote for a two month or one year, i think it should be submit today a vote so -- submitted to a vote, so

they need to come back and do the job for which we elected them. the conference committee option, that smacks too much of, you know, the smoke-filled room where decisions are made. we elect them to cast votes on our behalf and to represent us, and we will live or die with whatever the votes are, whatever the yea or nays have it. but they should come back and cast those votes for us so that we kneel -- feel as though we're being heard. >> host: all right. chuck's an independent in florida. >> caller: well, good morning, good morning, america. in the first instance, i think messing with the social security payroll tax is a stupid idea. and then they're going, and they're convoluting it even more by trying to figure out ways to pay for what they shouldn't be doing to begin with. and as far as i'm concerned, the senate is not representing the several states which is their job. we have the house of

representatives to represent us. and we centre palins in there -- sent republicans in there to do a job, and they're doing their job. and they agree with the president for once that we need to go ahead if we're going to do this stupid thing like extending this tax rebate, that we may as well do it for a year instead of just fooling around for two months. >> host: chuck, what do you make of senator marco rubio, republican of florida, voting with the other 38 senators in the senate last, over the weekend for a two month extension? >> caller: well, okay, here it is, you know? i'm, i listened to the rules committee thing before you came on this morning with "washington journal," and i understand the arguments going on. and the point was made that a majority of the republicans hadn't voted for this thing. i think they want to get out of dodge. everybody wants to get out of dodge. and i think that's the bottom line for all of them. i don't think they really care

whether or not what they're doing is anything more than temporary. so, ie, the two month extension. but, you know, i wonder, i like senator rubio. he's, i think he's real coherent and an inteblght individual, i'm glad he's in the senate. i'm an independent, but i think the man makes pefers sense. but here's my question. has my governor and has my state legislature gotten on the phone with mr. rubio and said, mr. rubio, you're a senator, you represent us here at the state legislature and the governor's level, we have the house of representatives to take care of the people, and we're telling you that we want you to do this, x, thus and can so. and that's what mr. rubio's supposed to be doing. that's the way our system is set up. >> host: all right, chuck. here's a tweet from donald schultz. he says this: simply voting to not do what the senate passed is not a plan. remember, you can send your comments to our twitter web

site, twitter.com, c-span wj with our handle on the web site. here is the baltimore sun this morning with a breakdown of the house bill and the senate bill. the cost in the house-passed bill is 200 billion, this is how they plan to pay for it. 36 billion in revenue from new fees for home loans backed by fannie mae, freddie mac and the government-sponsored lenders, other new sources come from selling broadcast spectrum, blocking illegal immigrants from collecting tax refunds and blocking unemployment benefits to million millionaires. government contributions to federal workers' retirement plans, federal health costs and a continued freeze on federal workers'. in the senate the two month extension would be 36 billion from home loans backed by frank and freddie, so there's agreement there. and then the policy provisions attached includes a requirement

that the administration make a decision on the keystone xl pipeline within 60 days of the bill becoming law. that is, also, what the house wants and what they approved in their bill. so we'll go to thomas next who's a republican in jacksonville, florida. morning, thomas. >> caller: yeah. i'd just like to say that i think john boehner's got it wrong this time. um, they ought to just go ahead and pass the bill as it is, and go home for christmas, come back in january and, you know, do what they're going to do. it's, you know, he's leaving the ball in the democrats' court, and they're liable to get hurt badly on this one. >> host: you think so? you think the optics of this, the politics of it are not good for the republicans? >> caller: no, i don't. i think they're, i think thai -- they're getting themselves in trouble. if harry reid wants to walk away, they can lay it all on the democrats, why everybody gets a

tax increase. >> host: let me show you, thomas and others, here's "the washington post," they have a new poll out today, and they said this. they noted that there were fresh signs that obama has gained ground on the tax issue, a traditional political sweet spot for republicans n. a new poll, voters said they trusted obama to do, quote, a better job handling taxes than republicans by a margin of 46% to 41%. a dramatic swing from two months ago when voters favored the gop, 46% to 39%. house republicans were equally confident that americans would blame democrats if they now shut down the talks. what's your reaction, thomas? >> caller: well, here's the thing, the bottom line is if we get a tax increase, the last thing they'd know is that boehner stopped it, stopped, stopped the vote and allowed this to happen. he's going to get in trouble. you know? the republicans run the risk of hurting themselves.

and the democrats will play on that. and, you know, the talking points and the usual, usual things that they say. >> host: thomas, how would you describe yourself as a republican, a moderate, conservative, tea party supporter? what? >> caller: no, i'm conservative. just conservative. >> host: okay. beverly, democratic caller in hurtford, north carolina. >> caller: hi, good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: i am for the senate and what they passed. and i don't believe they should come back. they passed with both republicans and the democratic votes. and as far as i'm concerned, boehner came out and agreed. he went back to the pack, came back out, disagreed. they will pay. thank you. >> host: okay. joe, an independent in long beach, new york. your thoughts. >> caller: i was listening to your guest this morning, and i -- you didn't ask him the one

question i would have liked to ask. if this is such a good idea, if this is such a good idea, why just pass it for two months? let's pass it for a year. if it's such a bad idea, let's not pass it at all. but i've never heard of a good idea only being passed for two months. that is the most inane thing i've ever heard. >> host: joe, and we have two members of congress coming up, representative lang todd from oklahoma, and congresswoman allison schwartz. so we can ask them those very questions, so stay with us this morning. >> caller: i'd appreciate that. >> host: all right. >> caller: merry christmas. >> host: maryland, go ahead. >> caller: you know, if we look at the bigger picture, when my party came into office, the first thing we said was our goal is to limit this president to one term. it wasn't to save the country from a depression, it wasn't to work cooperatively to give us a brighter future, it was to say -- it was to prevent this

president, who hadn't done anything yet, who.even taken office, to limit this person to one term. and the behavior and the activities that have gone on are shameful. and, you know, the root of the cause? why would one man tell the world that another man will be limited to one term for one purpose? one man. never happened before in history. so, i mean, it's obvious that, you know, a bigger picture here, and there's a bigger problem, and the fact is that the republican party is not working for the people. they took care of a certain group of people for almost eight years, and those people did very well. >> host: jon, you sound, some might say you sound like a democrat. this is the argument the democrats have been making. >> caller: yeah. i've been a republican for 40 years, so i don't -- i believe that you should teach a person to fish and not give them a fish. that's what i believe in. but the things that have been happening in my own party, it is

just shameful. it's just shameful, and, basically, it's just bigoted. there's no other explanation for someone to say that our whole purpose of our whole party is to limit this man from getting into office again. an intelligent man who's done an excellent job working with what he's been given which is an uncooperative nature of a party. >> host: all right. we'll leave it there. on 2012 politics, mitt romney, gop candidate, former massachusetts governor writing in "usa today" this morning, what kind of society does america want? if you're interested in reading that piece. and then more on politics, washington post out with a new poll. it says, it's an abc news poll as well. it says two weeks before the iowa caucuses, mitt romney and newt gingrich are clear national front runners for the republican presidential nomination. romney has an edge on perceived electability and does better in a matchup against president obama. if republican primary was being held today, whom would you support? if you look at those among all

of them, mitt romney and newt gingrich are tied for 30%. when you look at among the very conservative, newt gingrich has 36% of that support, mitt romney has 22%. jump ahead to a hypothetical general election matchup, if 2012 election were being held today, for whom would you vote? and "the washington post" shows that mitt romney and president obama tied at 47%. in a matchup against president obama against the former speaker, newt gingrich, obama wins 51 to 43%. and in a matchup of president barack obama versus congressman ron paul, 49 to 44%. and then, also, this is a piece in "the new york times" this morning. going after gingrich, the headline is: the rivals are mounting their attacks on gingrich in a volatile race. says candidates and theirallies have spent more than 600,000 over the past ten days on

television ads in the iowa criticizing newt gingrich with the bulk being spent by so-called superpacs supporting mitt romney. and the newspapers reporting this morning that these negative attack ads are taking their toll on gingrich's support. here is "the wall street journal" this morning. with a poll of independents and newt gingrich that says this: newt gingrich has problems with them if present election were held today, for whom would you vote? of independent voters, 41% said mitt romney, 39% said barack obama. when you look at newt gingrich versus barack obama, gingrich only gets 28% of the independent vote versus 50% for barack obama. sue, democratic caller in fresno, california. talking about this payroll tax debate here. the house is going to vote this morning, they're coming in at 9 a.m. they're going to vote on a motion to disagree with the senate language.

what do you think, house or senate plan? >> caller: okay. you speaking to me now? >> host: i am. go ahead. >> caller: okay. well, i listened to the speech that they had in their meeting, and the gentleman caught my eye that even though he's a republican that showed up the 941 tax return? now, that's for anybody that's in business, small or large, whether they are republicans or democrats or independents when it goes to the tax form itself and if they go in to change, in other words, the irs has to change the tax form to include this lower tax percentage that they have to pay. and they're due every quarter like the gentleman said. and so they have the conflict, and it is a lot of trouble to have to if pirg that in. figure that in. and what will happen if they don't have the tax forms to

include it, they're going to have to file amended returns and everything else down the line. and that's a lot of trouble to go to just for two months. so they should be, you know, using the whole year. but if like another gentleman i had heard earlier speak on the phone here that i was listening to, if bill has all these other tax attachments and there's something wrong with the attachments that they have of the bill, that a lot of the members of the house and senate don't agree upon, then they should, they shouldn't pass it. but if it's just going to be the one bill, you know, this one item for the unemployment and the payroll taxes? then, yes, they should vote to extend it for a year. >> host: so, sue, you disagree with your democratic leaders? >> caller: it depends on what's in it. if they got a whole lot of ore things -- other things attached to it that's going to hurt more people on the democratic and

republican side, there's no point in voting to put it in at all. >> host: all right. >> caller: yeah. but if it's just a bill by itself -- >> host: yeah. we got your point, sue. here is the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, and her tweets both the republican and democratic leaders didn't just go before the cameras, they've been exchanging tweet as well. nancy pelosi said 160 million americans will pay higher taxes because speaker boehner is blocking a house vote on a compromise bill 39 republicans voted for. stan in massachusetts, what's your take? >> caller: i, i'm one of the 51%ers who don't pay any federal or state tax. don't have to living on social security. >> host: okay. so what -- >> caller: and i don't know what to tell you people. there's 51%ers out here and climbing. >> host: so what does this mean, what does that mean for this debate? >> caller: well, i don't think they should chance it because

it's going to screw up social security income later on. >> host: all right. here's house speaker boehner's tweet: house will appoint conferees, we hope senate democrats will, too, and work with us to extend payroll tax relief for the full year. rock hill, south carolina, rufus, democratic caller -- excuse me, henry, a republican in rock hills, south carolina. go ahead. >> caller: yes, ma'am. well, like the guy before me, i'm on disability. but i want to get this point across, and i want c-span -- i watch c-span, and i would advise everybody that watches c-span to not, to when the house session and the senate session comes in, they need to watch more and more of them because i watch it all the time. i'm a homebound person. okay, having said that, you know, the republicans get the heat seemingly by nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and all them claiming that they wanted their

way, throw granny off the ditch and, you know, here a while back. and now they want to -- they're against the tax cuts. no. they're trying to do, they're trying to be like congress used to be. they passed the bill. it went to the senate. john boehner was not happy with the thing. they might have made the compromise, and then they ducked it out of town, okay? then they sent it back like they would automatically assign it. now they want to blame it on the tea parties. it ain't just the tea partiers. it's john boehner and the rest of the republicans. they don't like it and, furthermore, let me throw this in, the democratic lady from fresno is right. that consortium you talked about a while ago, that's legit. it will cause all kind of problems to do it for two months. so there's got to be a reason that the democrats -- i call 'em

the deceptocrats that the president and harry reid want it for two months other than a year after he campaigned on the campaign trail that he wasn't going to stop until they got the one-year tax break done before the year was out. >> host: a lot in the papers this morning about north korea. here's the front page of "the washington post" with this headline: the reaction in washington with the quote, it is scary how little we really know about the successor to kim jung-il. and then the washington times this morning, their front page: kim's chosen successor holds credentials but lacks experience. and then the financial times with their headline: the great successor, as he's being called, takes over. in that paper it says, they have a quote here from a newscaster saying he worked day and night for socialist construction and the happiness of people for the union of country and modernization. he left us so suddenly, said the

teary-eyed newscaster in north korea. it goes on to say this, though, kim jung-il's death rids the world of one of the world's most ruthless leader, turned the state into a nuclear-armed power

. >> caller: what's the difference between two months and one year? if they're just going to make it one year, why not make it an amendment or something? >> host: okay. diana in monticello, minnesota. morning. >> caller: good morning, and merry christmas to you and c-span. i would say that they are, yea to the republicans. they're doing something. they're trying to do something. and, yes, i agree with the man from new york that why would you put a bill up for who months? doesn't that sound kind of democrat? let's get the work done, let's pass it for a year, and let's, you know, give some kudos to the republicans for trying. and as far as obama being in

there, the republicans trying to get obama out of the white house after only four years, isn't that what republicans are supposed to do? it doesn't matter who's in the as a democrat, you don't want another democrat in. isn't that the idea? republicans want a republican in. >> host: diane, let me go back to the payroll tax cut debate and get your reaction to this from "the washington post." as the house drama unfolded, a small but influential band of senate republicans broke ranks with speaker boehner, castigating his leadership team for risking a tax increase at the start of the year rather than simply approving the senate bill. what's your reaction? >> caller: um, i know i've been watching. i, i have to agree and have to have faith with what the republicans are doing. if boehner changed his mind, and

i'd have to watch a little more. christmas shopping, whatever. >> host: are you going to watch today's debate on the floor? >> caller: yes, absolutely. >> host: okay. 9 a.m. is when it starts. >> caller: i think, i think anyone that has a chance should. >> host: okay. democratic caller in hammond, indiana. >> caller: good morning. happy holidays. i have to take reference with that previous caller. i've been watching, and let's have a little refresher course real quick. this was negotiated last year and because the republicans were dead set against any kind of middle class help whatsoever including tax cuts and unemployment. so in order to negotiate, in order to compromise our president compromised and extended those stupid, crazy bush tax cuts that our governor, mitch daniels, was, it was his

brain child and has ruined us ever since. but that was negotiated. then they had this tax cut, the middle class tax cut holiday in the obama jobs plan. okay? the house voted it down, okay? >> they had a chance then. now, what i found very interesting and i'm surprised -- i was wracking my brain all night figuring out what's the catch here. the republicans are up to something. that lady says, oh, we have to trust the republicans, kudos to them. no. they are deseing as always. they are -- deceiving as always. they are playing a game. mitch mcconnell doesn't give in for anything -- >> payroll tax cut debate life now -- live now in the house. we're going to take you live to london for the british inquiry into phone hacking by tabloid newspapers. that's piers morgan, cnn talk show host, on your screen.

in the mid '90s, he was editor of "news of the world." this is live coverage on c-span2. >> if you need to, you will -- [laughter] >> i have no doubt. >> your full name, please, mr. morgan. >> piers stephane hover began. >> thank you very much. now, you provided us with two witness statements, the first dated the 1st of november this year, it runs to 15 pages. it's signed and has a statement of truth. um, is that true of your first witness statement, mr. morgan? >> yes. >> and the second one is nine pages, dated the 21st of november, again with the statement of truth. do you stand by that statement, mr. morgan? >> yes. >> now, if i can cover your professional background, you were editor of the "news of the world," is that right, between january 1994 and august 1995, is

that correct? >> yes. >> i think you were the youngest-ever editor at the age of 28, is that correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> and that youth has not since been surpassed. you then moved to "the daily mirror" between september 1995 and the 14th of may, 2004, is that correct? >> yes. >> and you are now, um, i think, um, an employee of cnn, and you, um, you do, is it, a daily show, "piers morgan tonight," which is very big in the u.s., i understand. >> clearly past due, but, yes, it is. >> thank you. may i is ask you two general questions? we know from your first statement that you were, as you describe it, de facto editor of "the sun"'s show biz column which, i think, is still called

bizarre under calvin mckenzie. we've noted it's not uncommon for editors of leading tabloids to have come through the show biz columns of tabloid newspapers. why do you think that is so? >> because you basically constructing a mini newspaper every day. [audio difficulty] column like that. a newspaper in the sense that you're looking for a lead story, a second lead story, smaller stories, a picture. so the framework of a column like bizarre became a sort of working template, if you'd like, for potential future editors. and i'm sure that's why so many became editors. >> yes.. -- [inaudible] current preoccupation in celebrity and that the news values have very much focused on that sort of matter? >> well, no. i think the story patronizing

when people say that because i think that in the end you have to be a good journalist to do a column like that, and you have to be a good journalist to do news and show biz stuff. and the art of being a good tabloid journalist is your ability to do both. i've always felt if you looked at some of the people who came through bizarre, people like martin dunn who went on to edit the new york daily news, and these are proper, serious news journalists. i don't think it can necessarily follow that because you do a column in your early years in the main about celebrity this means you are unfit to cover news. i think that's rather pompous. >> okay. can i ask you the second general question, the turnover of journalists between the tabloids and ask you about your experience which i know ended in may 2004. was there rapid turnover between tabloid newspapers or not? >> yeah. also between tabloids and broad sheets. i mean, they won't want to admit this, but quite a few people who have gone through the ranks of

the broad sheet newspaper game have originated from the tabloids and vice versa. >> thank you. i need to ask you, now, another general question about the first two volumes of your diaries. because the first volume is called "the insider." second volume, "don't you know who i am?" ? the general question is, how accurate and reliable are these as historical documents? >> um, well, that's a moot point. i mean, they are my record of ten years of editing newspapers which were compiled not as a contemporaneous diary as i say in the introduction can, but from a collection of notes, memos, e-mails, stuff like that. and stuff i just kept on a sort of weekly basis. and i constructed the book in the diary form as best my memory served it. but is it a record of 100% historical import? i would say, no.

>> no. but is it your best recollection at all material times? >> yes. >> now, in your first statement, please, mr. morgan, if i could take you to paragraph 15, which is our page 24194, an answer to a general question -- >> yeah. >> -- you say ethical determinations are central to the role of an editor of a major national newspaper and to the profession of journalism generally. during my time as editor of "news of the world" and "the daily mirror," ethical considerations were interwoven into my work and an omnipresent aspect of my daily life. so that was and is your credo, have i got that right? >> yes. >> and then paragraph 17, the code of practice, you say it was

displayed prominently in the newsroom of "the daily mirror" and informed every editorial decision i made during my tenure of the "news of the world" and "the daily mirror." in the context of balancing privacy of individuals against the public interest. again, is that right? >> yes. >> and then paragraph 18, your recollection is compliance with the code of practice was a requirement of contracts of employment of journallests working with "the daily mirror" from at least around 2000. you don't think and, again, i'm paraphrasing, it was an expression requirement of your contact with editor, but then you say in your second statement it really was so obvious that it went without saying, you comply with the code of practice. is that correct? >> yes. >> paragraph 25 of this statement you deal with libel.

you make it, you make it clear in your view that the libel laws in the united kingdom impose enormously onerous requirements. is that so? >> yeah, that was my belief when i was editing newspapers. obviously, i've witnessed nearly eight years after i left editing newspapers, so it relates really to my time as editor. it may well have changed since then. i haven't really followed it. >> okay. now, in paragraphs 28 and following of your first statement, you give us some examples of how ethical considerations informed your decision making. the first in paragraph 29, you were provided with a lead copy of -- leaked copy of the budget in 1996, and the upshot it was, if i can paraphrase the matter, you didn't think it right to publish it. so instead you handed it back. have i fairly summarized what, what happened? >> yes.

>> you're taking the view it might cause economic harm if budget were, as it were, trailed in the newspaper before it was publicly announced, was that your thinking? >> well, we had a meeting with senior management which was very unusual because of potential implications of leaking the budget. we felt this was the correct way. and there were a number of considerations, one of which was we were not able because of the ticking clock element of the story to completely verify its veracity. so we weren't entirely sure we were dealing with 100% accurate documents. secondly, we felt the material contained in it could potentially cause market chaos and was that a responsible thing for a newspaper to be doing? did we need to do that? was it not a big enough story to actually just have the budget and create excitement? you know, looking back on it, there were a number of things we could have done with that story,

i'm satisfied that we took the responsible course of action. although i would note that within the space of 24 hours i was castigated by "the guardian" on the night they praised me for what i had done, and then by the next day they had come around to thinking this was a terrible abrogation of my journalistic duties. so clearly, there were different views about what i'd done. >> thank you. and then in paragraph 31 cover inside more detail in your first diary, you deal with a story which broke in december 1997 involving the 17-year-old son of the then-home secretary being involved in selling cannabis. you explain how that story was confirmed with the then-home secretary. but you decided, um, in the circumstances which arose to publish the story but without identifying the boy concerned, is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. and then in paragraph 33 the naomi campbell story, that, of

course, is the story which ended up in the house of lords, um, a couple of years later, i think. is that right? >> yes. >> where the lordships were divided, as we all know, 3-2. >> yes. >> can i deal with paragraph 34 of your statement dealing with earl spencer's complaint in relation to his wife receiving certain treatment? this his complaint was upheld by the pcc, and then mr. rupert murdoch gave a public statement which you set out in paragraph 34 where he said it is clear in this case that the young man -- i think that's you -- went over the top. i have no hesitation in making public this demonstration. now, i've reminded mr. morgan this is responsibility to the care with which he is an editor subscribes to in his employment. the company will not tolerate disrepute the best practices of

popular journalism and then we'll return to that in a moment. may i ask you, though, a little bit in this first witness statement to deal with the issue of private investigators. we're now at paragraph 50 on our page 24202. you have no recollection of any personal involvement in use of private investigators during your time at the "news of the world." well, we're looking there at a period which, i think, was less than two years. to paragraph 51, "the daily mirror" would from time to time engage private investigators during my time as editor. such people were used for fact-checking articles and stories the journalists had uncovered or about which they had received a tip. do you know what sort of evidence private investigators would seek out for your

newspaper, mr. morgan? >> i don't because i was never directly involved. this was dealt with through the news desk or the features desk, so an editor in that position, i think, probably like most editors you just wouldn't get directly involved. but certainly, the journalists all knew they had to operate within the law. that was enshrined within their contracts of employment, so i never had any concerns that they were breaking the law with regard to using private investigators. >> okay. well, i'll come back, too, to that issue if i may. um, the question, please, of unethical news gathering, presumably you've heard of the term "binnology," is that correct? >> i've actually become acquainted with it through the process of this inquiry. >> okay. on how many occasions did you deploy or take advantage of the services of benji, the bin man?

>> i was trying to remember. i know that i vetoed at least one -- detailed at least one in my book in relation to a story about elton john. i can't honestly say how many times, but certainly we deployed him or his services several times. >> in your first book, 1998, the 13th of january, the entry says i don't know whether you've got the same -- >> yeah. >> -- paper edition. >> yeah. i think it's the same -- >> page 185. you tell us benjamin pearl, a very strange guy who has peddled me a few stories in the past rang me this morning with an extraordinary offer. i've got all elton john's bank statements, he squealed in a high-pitched voice. i knew immediately where he had gotten them. his nickname is benji the bin

man, he goes around collecting rubbish from outside celebrities' houses. loads the paper by his stuff, despite the seriously unethical way he acquires it. and then i paraphrase, he turned up with satchels of elton's documents including the bank statements. um, did can you have any qualms about that, mr. morgan? >> slightly. i mean, it italy -- it clearly is, you know, a strange thing to be doing. benji used to live in a house that had hundreds, if not thousands of rubbish bins. he live inside a sealed rubbish bin. it's a very unusual way to lead your life. did i think he was doing anything illegal? no. did i think it was on the cusp of unethical? yes. but it was interesting to me to see the testimony of david lee, the chief investigations editor from "the guardian" who decided to make somebody else pay for this information while bringing

up all the details himself which is something "the guardian's" very good at. and since they've appointed themselves as the bishops of fleet street, i'd like to examine that practice because in a way it's not dissimilar. you know, they take the discarded remains from the tabloids, fill their papers with them but never have to pay anything. i mean, if i thought of what they'd deleted, then "the daily mirror" would be a lot more profitable. >> mr. morgan, we're not asking questions of mr. lee at the moment. we're, i'm afraid, asking questions of you. >> sure. >> your book says you use this exact language, despite the seriously unethical way he acquireed it, not just on the cusp of unethical behavior, it's on the wrong side of the line, wouldn't you agree? >> i don't know, actually, because if you throw something away, you're discarding it. so you clearly have no more use to it, and it's going to go down to the rubbish tip where

everyone knows they help themselves -- >> i'm not sure they can actually, mr. morgan. i'm not sure they can, but you could get some legal advice about that. >> you can't go to rubbish pits? >> no. i don't think you can, mr. morgan. i think that property in the discarded rubbish probably belongs to the local authority once it's on their tip. but are you seriously suggesting that the person who's thrown away rubbish, in this case mr. elton john, has any expectation that it might end up in the hands of a journalist? >> well, it wasn't him, actually, it was his manager -- >> yes, his manager, pardon me. yes. >> yeah. >> the same principle applies, doesn't it? >> you know, i think you throw rubbish into the street, then, you know, i just throw it out there. i wonder how unethical it is if that appears in a newspaper? i mean, it's rubbish, isn't it? >> okay. private investigators, have you

heard of someone called steve wickmore? >> i have since this all blew up, yeah. i wasn't aware of him before. >> when were you, you first aware that, um, 45 of the "daily mirror"'s journalists were identified by the information commissioner positively to have been involved in the commissioning, in his view, of unlawful transactions by mr. steve wickemore? >> was it published in 2006? is. >> it was, yes. were you aware of it at all then? >> i was actually working in america. i'd left newspapers two years before, so that was when -- i vaguely remember noting it when it was published in the papers at the time. >> the information commissioner identified 681 transactions is

the term he used which he considered amounted to breaches of data protection law and 45 named journalists at the "daily mirror." are you saying you weren't aware of any of that happening at the time after you were editor? >> i'm not aware of any of the specifics. but i'm also not aware that any of those journalists were ever arrested or charged or prosecuted or convicted or anything. so he may have a view about the nature of those investigations, and the paper may well have had a very different view. >> but what view did you have of what the journalists were doing at the time regardless of the view the information commissioner might have had? >> well, the journalists were obliged under their contracts of employment to work within the law. and the only possible exception to that was if you were deploying a public interest effect. that was the only possible excuse you could have for going

against the law. >> but were you in general terms what the sort of information the journalists were seeking from, from mr. wick emore? namely directory numbers, vehicle registration marks, that that sort of thing? were you aware of that? >> no. [inaudible conversations] >> your responsibility as editor to be aware of what your journalists were doing at least in general terms? >> well, i would say the average editor is probably aware of about 5% of what his journalists are up to at any given time m. >> okay. >> on every newspaper. >> were you aware of the sort of money that was being spent on mr. wickemore? even if one confined it to the 681 positively-identified transactions according to the information commissioner's evidence, the figure would be anything between 53,000 and 80,000 pounds? many were you aware of that at the time?

>> no. >> who would be responsible for authorizing that level of expenditure? would it be the managing editor? >> uh, i think, i think so, yeah. i think at the mirror it's all pretty tightly run through the managing editor's office and from the desk editors themselves, the news editors, the features editors and so on. it would all be done at that level. and it didn't come across my desk as far as i have any recollection of, so that's why i don't have any memory of any of the specifics on this. but i do want to reiterate here, you know, none of this has ever been proven. i mean, these are just things where people said, well, we believe this. >> mr. morgan, i'd be very grateful if you would answer mr. jay's questions rather than enter into a debate with him. i'm sure we'll get on much more quickly. >> okay. no problem. >> i may come back to that

issue. but the issue of phone hacking which i am obliged to ask you about, page 279 of your, the first volume of your diary which is an entry for the 26th of january, 2001. >> yeah. >> just bear with me one minute while i find it. four lines into the entry for the 26th of january, someone suggested today that people might be listening to my mobile phone messages. apparently, if you don't change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number, and if you don't answer, tack in the standard four-digit code to hear

all your messages. i'll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick. when were you first made aware of this little trick? >> well, according to this friday, 26th of january, 2001. >> were you aware of it before? >> not as far as i'm aware, no. >> who made you aware of this little trick? >> i have no idea. i'm sorry. it was ten years ago, and i can't remember. >> can you assist at all with the context? um, if you look -- the staff of the entry which deals with something else altogether, just refresh your memory. >> uh-huh. >> i'll ask you, too, to think hard. who -- you don't necessarily have to identify the someone who

suggested it to you, but whether it was another journalist, whether it was a friend, can you help us at all? >> if i can't remember who it is, then obviously i can't, i can't narrow it down to a genre. >> okay. >> i can't remember. >> to you recall an interview in 2007 with the press gazette in which you said, and i quote: as for clive goodman, i feel a lot of sympathy for a man who's been the convenient fall guy for an investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at almost every paper in fleet street for years. >> yes. >> now, why did you say that? >> well, that was the rumor at the time, i mean, it was exploding. i wasn't there, i hadn't been there for three years, but everyone you talked to said he was being made a scapegoat. this was a widely prevalent

thing. i wasn't aware that it was widely prevalent in any specific form. i was hearing these rumors like everybody else. the reality is that it certainly seems to have been much more widespread at one newspaper, and we now know that the "the guardian" also phone hacked, so you had two newspapers. so, certainly, it was wider, apparently, than just clive goodman. but i'm not going to get into rumor mongering because that's not really the point of this inquiry, i don't think. >> but were you rumor mongering when you had the interview with the press gazette in 2007, or were you speaking from your own experience? >> no, i was just passing on rumors that i'd heard. >> was this a practice which, if we may add a third newspaper to the mix, was taking place within "the daily mirror" before 2004? >> i do not believe so, no. >> you don't believe so or -- >> we're going to break away momentarily from this british inquiry and let you know you can

watch and continue to watch online at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is come anything briefly for a pro forma session. we'll show you that, then back to the british hearing. live coverage here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 20, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: and under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. on friday, december 23, 2011.

>> we will take you back live now to the british inquiry on phone hacking with piers morgan testifying. >> i simply say the people are doing it, the circle is very wide, and certain income the high and the low end, of the supposed newspaper market. so you were saying there, weren't you, that your newspaper was doing at? >> doing what? >> phone hacking amongst other things. >> no. if you listen to the tape, i played it the other day to remind myself, i go to entry question in the and she cuts me off because i know exactly where she's going and she's talking about the kind of what i guess would be described as the dark arts of newspaper investigations, whether that's

paparazzi photography. and i was responding in general terms. you could hear the tape back in real-time you can see that. i didn't hear her say phone tapping. i certainly wasn't alluding to phone hacking. i was talking in a general way about the practices of an investigation, the nature by which the definition cannot sound quite an edifying. >> the third parties who you were referring to, while -- who were those third parties in general terms of? >> people like that private investigators, anybody who had been in the paparazzi photographers. >> what was the private investigators doing which fell within the dark arts? >> i don't know specifics. i'm talking about the generalization of the investigative work. so, you know, people don't understand how stories get into newspapers, or how in detail of the news reports get on television.

the way that stories are gathered is a way they are processed. it doesn't make it illegal. >> i just wonder what you were intending to encompass by third parties and private investigators, mr. morgan. what activities were they up to on your behalf? >> i don't know specifics, as i've said to you. i think i've given the range of things from, you know, the rubbish we talked about from paparazzi photography, to staking people out in their homes. it's not the kind of work that sounds that edifying, but every news organization will do it and they progress of gather news. it doesn't matter if wright brothers sheeter, television company or tabloid. >> are you saying he didn't hear him mention people who tap peoples phones?

>> no. if you listen to the tape back you can see i didn't hear her. >> the transcript says, admittedly, people tap peoples phones, people take secret photographs, and the music i know but. and to be fair she interrupt you again. >> i've already tried to answer on your first point before she mentioned phone tapping. i didn't hear her say phone tapping. she rattles off a list of stuff, and if you listen to it in real time i think you would see that. >> okay. another interview which is in "gq" magazine, should be under your tab 17 i hope, mr. morgan, when pierce met -- yet. >> quite recent. >> no, no, it's not.

>> it's a reprint of an article which was published in april 2007. that's right. but the version we're looking at was later. same sort of phenomena and as we saw in -- >> yes. >> it was reported. unfortunately the way it is printed off it's quite difficult to get these things off the internet, it's about 13 pages in. >> i've got the page is. >> when they pull out the large notepad and she starts interviewing you, and the question she puts to you at the bottom of the page, what do you think of the "news of the world" reporter who was richly found guilty of tapping the world post? did you ever allow that when you were there? well, i was there in 94-95

before mobiles were used much in that particular trip wasn't noted that. i can't get too excited about it. is pretty well-known that if he didn't change your pin code when you're a celebrity you bought a new phone. and reporters could render mobile, tapped in to the factory setting number and hear your messages. that's not planting about someone's house, which is what some people seem to think was going on. so when you say there it was pretty well known, are you referring to what was pretty well known -- what period of time would you say was pretty well known? if i can ask the question it away. >> i know from a book i became aware of it in early 2001, and i have faint memories of that after this gathering, members of public. from what i hear this wasn't a

great trade secret. but my memory is not great about this. it was a long time ago. >> okay. and then after you've expressed a view about the seriousness, i mean, did that indicate to us that you didn't think it was particularly serious? >> no. i think there's been a misconception built up that this involved journalist breaking into peoples houses and planting bugs in their phones. i was really talking about the seriousness between that and what is actually a very simple thing to do for a mobile phone. and something that i'm told, although i have no evidence myself, was widely known to the public. and the fact they use to do it to each other. >> ms. gamble as you it's an invasion of privacy though, and you say yes. but loads of newspaper journalist were doing it. clive goodman was being made a

scapegoat for a very widespread practice. you are making clear that what we all believe was in april 2007, is that correct? >> yes. it seems to have been brought up. >> you were sticking your neck quite far, weren't you, mr. morgan, and very widespread practice, loads of journalists were doing it. you are making segments there which would suggest at least that you're basing yourself on personal knowledge, even if other people might have told you, wouldn't you agree of? >> no, i wouldn't agree. >> but why did you say he was made a scapegoat for a very widespread practice? >> well, i would've thought that subsequent events have shown that he was made the scapegoat. because it's the fact. >> in april 2007, we were looking at one individual,

mr. goodman, and one private investigator, mr. mulcaire, that not many people were saying that it was a very widespread practice and that individuals happen to know that it was a very widespread practice. >> i see your point but it's not the point i'm making. the rumor mill which is always extremely noisy and often not entirely accurate, just endless rumors that it is spread a lot further than clive goodman. subsequent events have shown that to be the case. so i do think he was made a scapegoat. and having known him when i was in the "news of the world" i felt sorry for him. >> couple of questions further on, would you like it if someone listened to your messages? oh, they used to do it to me. who was they? >> again, that was the rumor middle and that was my concern when the person who i can't

remember said to me that they might be hacking your phone's. what is that? and they told me. i have been told before doing it to me to my investigation which i know you may want to refer to later. i get no specifics, no proof or evidence of that. >> and then you say no, i didn't like it. suggested the subject agrees that uniform or about who is doing it to you than you are telling us now, mr. morgan. can you -- >> i didn't like the thought of it. if it was true. i have actually no hard evidence that it was true but i didn't like the idea of it. it certainly makes sense to me because some stuff was leaking at the time emac to the rumor mill you're referring to embrace your newspaper of being amongst the perpetrators of? >> not that i remember, no. >> come on, mr. morgan. your newspaper was near the top of the list, wasn't it? >> top of the list of what?

>> of the perpetrators, those who were carrying out this sort of practice. you all know that. >> you also will know that not a single person has made any formal or legal complaint against the "daily mirror" for phone hacking, not one. so why would you say that? >> i'll continue with what you told ms. gamble just to complete this line of questioning. but with new technology comes new condition and new issues and this has brought the practice out in the open and it won't happen anymore, celebs get a lot more privacy now than they used to. so you believed him is this right that this practice was coming to an end, is that so, in april -- >> i certainly felt with clive goodman the practice would be dead in the water, yeah. >> had you listened to recording of what you need to be illegally obtained voicemail messages? >> i do not believe so, no.

>> you either did or you didn't. i don't think the question of belief. have you listen to recordings of what you need to be illegally obtained voice bill messages? >> i do not believe so. >> well, you know about the mail online peace, which i think is your tab 22 for the 19th of october, 2006. can i invite you to look at that, please? it's going to be under our tab one in this second volume. we are working slightly different volumes. it's about 10 pages in to that one. >> thank you. it's dated the 19th of october, 2006.

it's quite a french headline, but doesn't matter. i'm sorry for introducing me to this monster, so we've got our bearings there. and what you say at the start of this piece is that it was you who introduced palmer gardening to edit mills. that's what you say, isn't it? >> yes spent i don't see -- lead up develop our celestial me to read them out. but you explain that you introduced heather mills to call after the show. and then we know what happened next, as it were. i'm going to cut straight to the quick. right in the of this page, stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble. do you have that sense of? >> yes. i do, yes. >> at one stage i was played a tape of a message paul had left from heather on her mobile

phone. can you remember the circumstances, mr. morgan? >> well, i can't discuss where i was played at people who played it. to do so would be to compromise a source and i can't do that. >> i'm not sure about that, mr. morgan. you can discuss in general terms what it was, can't you? >> actually no, i can't. >> it was a tape of a voicemail message, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to discuss where i heard it or who pleaded to me for the reasons i discussed but i don't think it's right. in fact, the inquiry has already stated to me don't expect it to identify sources. >> no, but i think we do expect you to identify what is obvious to anyone reading it. is that you listen to a tape of a voicemail message, is that correct? >> i listen to a tape of a message, yes. >> it was a voicemail message, wasn't it? >> i believe it was, yes.

>> then you get in more detail here than what you heard. it was heartbreaking, the couple had a tiff. heather fled to india and paul was pleading with her to come back. you gave in saying something indeed antiphon as you said you listen to all of that. if you know that that was unethical? >> not unethical. >> why not. >> it doesn't necessarily follow listening to somebody speaking to someone else is unethical. >> on the tape of a voicemail message you didn't think that was unethical. >> it depends on the circumstances in which. >> can you tell something about the circumstances that might lead us to believe it was not unethical? >> i'm afraid i'm can't, no, i'm not going to do anything that would identify the source of. >> the source would only someone who is participating in the same unethical activities you were,

isn't that true of? >> you are presenting it is unethical. >> let's give it this way, think about it this way, mr. morgan. without identifying your source, the only person who would also be able to listen to the message is the lady in question, or somebody authorized on her behalf to listen to it, isn't that right? >> possibly. >> well? >> sorry, what did you expect me to stay? >> or another possibility if there is one, i think. >> well, i think, i can't go into details of this but without customizing a source and i'm not going to do that. >> i am perfectly happy to call

lady mccartney to give evidence as to whether she authorized you to listen to her voice mails. if she didn't, if she did she may say she did in which case you're not compromising anybody. but if she didn't, then we can proceed on the premise that it is somebody else, can't we? >> what we know for a fact about lady heather mills mccartney is that in their divorce case, paul mccartney stated as a fact that she had recorded their conversations and given them to the media. >> well, maybe i will do that been. can you help us, please. it's approximately when the event described here took place, namely you listening to the message? >> i believe the early part of

2000, 2001 but a kerry member exactly when. >> so we are clearly in the era when you're the editor of the "daily mirror," aren't we? >> i believe so, yes. >> was resource and employee of the "daily mirror"? >> i'm not going to go any details about the source. >> i don't think you'd be identifying the source if you would tell us whether or not the employee or the individual was an employee of the "daily mirror." can you not to? >> i'm not going to start any trail that leads to the identification of the source. >> did you listen to johnson's voice no messages in relation to ericsson? >> no, i did not. >> do you recall a lunch at the "daily mirror" hosted by victor blank on the 20th of september, 2002, when you advise johnson to change her pin number

and you started mimicking her swedish accent? do remember that occasion? >> no, i did not and with the specifics but i think of them are coming to a lunch. breaking it down into two parts, might you have advised her to change her pin number? >> i don't recall anything like that. >> mr. bin burghardt in also at the lunch, indeed sitting next to or placed to you? >> he did come to one of the largest. the british telecom sky? >> yes. >> he came to one of the lunches but i don't know which one. >> did you tell him he should tell his customers to be more careful about changing their pin numbers? >> i don't recall that. >> might you have told him that? >> since i had been warned, it's possible, yeah.

>> can i tell you, or put the rather common as generally as i can the circumstances in which suggests you did listen erika johnson's voicemail, a competitor of yours had hacked into her voicemail, sorry, i'm not going to go into the details of that, they were then posting about this in a pub, and then someone told someone close to you to let it be known to you that this is what happened, and then you decided that you, in other words, the mayor, hacked into erika johnson's voicemail as well and that is precisely what happened? >> absolute nonsense as far as i'm concerned. >> none of that is true, is that right? >> i detail in my book how i was simply told that erika johnson was having an affair with ericsson.

i rang her agent who i knew very well. she came back and confirmed it. >> page 330 of the insider i think. mr. morgan. the entry for the 18th of april, 2002 where you say you have to sit down for this one. are you with me? richard wallis, he had flown into my office looking even more please with himself than usual. and i could tell from the wicked grin on his face this one, a big one as well. he never told, you never said after what his source or who his source was, do you? >> not here, no. >> may be the reason for your

difference is you didn't want to set out precisely who are what the source was because you knew that would be a bit tricky to put it mildly, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't agree with that, no. >> and it's right, you did on erika's agent, and then there were various exchange. can i ask you to deal with the entry for the 21st of april. the last line, i traded is all too close friends of the rica. what was that a reference to? >> well, i had a conversation and she doesn't want to be named on the record, but she would be happy for me to say close

friends of erika, which she was. >> but isn't that a reference to whoever was the source in the first place rather than erika's agent who he spoke to to confirm whether or not the story was correct? >> no. i think it's so but it. if you read from -- [inaudible] it looks like he's freaking her out. quote, she says she was alive but i attribute this all too close friends of erika, i thought it's fairly obvious. >> okay. you've seen, i think, this statement which is in our bundle, just give you the tab in a moment. tab nine, mr. morgan. >> yeah.

>> if you look at the bottom right hand side, page 24227, -- >> it's actually not numbered, i don't think. >> if you look at the bottom right hand side of each page, do you see a long number? >> i'm looking at -- >> it's going to be the third page. >> okay. >> the paragraph beginning in the middle of the page, another example of the lack of corporate governance at the mayor was the unfettered activities of the showbiz team. are you with me? on the 22nd, is that where the showbiz journalists were based?

>> yes. i think so, yes. >> eyewitness journalist carrying out repeated privacy infringements using a well-known technique tacking to the voice no systems of celebrities, the friends, moses and public relations executive you open up the frequency of the hacking activity gave me the impression that hacking was considered a bomb standard journalistic tool of gathering information. example i would on occasion here to or more members of the showbiz team discussing what they heard envoy spent openly across their desks. one of the reporters should be the technique give me an demonstration of how to hack into voicemails. the practice seemed to be comment on other newspapers as well, journalists and "the mirror" seem to know that their counterparts were also listen to voice no messages because on occasion i had numbers of "the mirror" team joking about having deleted a message from the voicemail in order to ensure

that no journalists from the sun would get the same scoop by hacking in and hearing it themselves. is that something you knew about, mr. morgan? >> no. >> you were quite hands-on, weren't you? you had come up through showbiz journalism. you were close to the showbiz journalists on the 22nd floor, weren't you? >> they worked for me, and they were good at the job enacted me take a keen interest at what they were doing? >> i took a keen interest in everything they were doing. >> so this sort of thing was going on quite as a standard of journalistic tool, something you would likely to know about and, indeed, it was going on. wouldn't you agree? >> probably, yeah. >> so i think it follows that your evidence must be that it

wasn't going on. or maybe your evidence is it was going on. and you assistance, please? >> i have no reason or not she believe it was going on. >> but what did you yourself know from your own perception of what was going on? did you see this sort of thing going on? >> no,. >> are you sure about that? >> 100%. i also point out high good is a convicted criminal. >> you have told us that several times in the second witness statement, but again you come close to arguing rather than giving us evidence. can i just ask you a number of other points on what mr. pip well says. he says as well, page 242 a.

eight, the fourth page, six lines, so five lines from the bottom, occasionally when big stories emerged he, that is you, would ask us, myself, about the source of our information. whether or not the paper would face a libel action of publication if the story turned out to be wrong. is that correct? >> sorry, can you repeat that? >> is five lines from the bottom. you asking him about the source of their information. occasionally he said, is backlit? >> i had very little to do with mr. tidwell at all. i have no recollection of any conversations with him ever about the source of any story. >> as a generality just talking about your practice rather than a specific case, would you ask

your journalists about source of the information? >> not usually, no. >> on occasion would you? >> very occasionally. >> so the top of the next page where mr. tidwell says from my expense of working in newspapers, news editors and editors are supporters for the source of the story as a matter of course. libel action or having an apology, their number one concern, is that right or not? >> no. >> are you thinking to distance yourself from the sources because the sources were talking about are the fruits of phone hacking? >> no. >> and two pages further on, our page 24231, four lines from the top of the page, where

mr. tidwell says there is however an undeniable pressure to deliver scoops, is that right or not? >> well, if you're a tabloid newspaper he worked for one, there was a convention would try to come up with some stories, yes. >> he continues, exclusive to sell newspapers especially sunday newspapers, every journalist is under pressure to bring them in. would you agree with that statement or not? >> generally you're under pressure to bring a story, certainly it's in the job description. >> for example, mr. morgan would regularly send out four-star e-mails berating journalists are not bring in enough exclusives. these e-mails would often be quite menacing in town. is that correct or not? >> i would quibble with many but certainly occasionally put a rocket up there collective

backside if i felt they were not performing well. >> have you seen sentencing remarks of mr. justice beecher in connection with the criminal proceedings against mr. tidwell? >> is that in -- is a tiered? >> yes, it is. i just have to find it, one moment. just bear with me because i know your bundle has been tabbed in a slightly different way. i'm not sure that you got this, mr. morgan. >> i might have a. i think i have it, if it's, it's number two and three and four

here in my -- >> is it behind someone is whispering to me, hopefully that it is behind your witness statement. behind -- >> i think i've got it, yes. >> just one part of it i want to ask you about, or, but i'm not going to ask about the particular circumstances. he says, sorry, he, mr. justice beecher, says on page five about 10 lines from the bottom of the page, five of the sensing remark on i also take into the fact that at the time there was no formal code of conduct for journalists for the "daily mirror." is that correct or not? >> know, i believe there was. i think, a relation to the

convention code of conduct which was on display in the newsroom. there wasn't an individual one for the "daily mirror" but journalists were expected to adhere to the code. >> okay. there was no guidance from their superiors or from the in house lawyers, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't, no. there was regular guidance from lawyers in particular. >> and then he continues, and that there was evidence of a culture of advanced information about tips and share dealing with in the office. would you agree with that? >> i would dispute that. >> you don't think there was any culture of that sort in the daily mayor at the time at all, is that right? >> no, i don't. certain journalist did. i don't think there was a culture of this at all.

>> so i think you're one of them, weren't you, that you bought 67,000 pounds of shares in the company called -- the day before it was picked by the "daily mirror" i think on the 18th of january 2000, is that right? >> yes. >> and it culminated in the pcc upholding a complaint, technical breach that occurred, but no more than that. and the dci after a four-year investigation not taking the matter any further, is that right? >> yes. >> although recently i think your position, mr. morgan, that you only purchase 20,000 pounds worth of shares, is that right? >> no, that wasn't my position. i told my company be neatly how many shares i bought. >> for the dcc's adjudication

refers, the first adjudication referred to only 20,000 pounds worth of shares, didn't it? >> i believe so, yes. >> wasn't that based on the information that you provided the pcc? >> not that i provided. the company did. >> which company? >> i think it was trinity mirror, wasn't it? >> it must've been information which you provided trinity mirror for them to provide to the pcc, can we not agree about that? trinity mirror would not know unless you told them. >> the teddy bear were well aware of what they think 10 hours of the story first emerging exactly how me shares i bought. >> based on information you provided, is that correct, mr. morgan? >> yes. >> one way or another they were under the impression, incorrect it seems, that it is 20,000 pounds worth of shares,

not 67,000, is that right? >> who was under the impression? >> "trinity mirror" and thereafter the pcc, are we in agreement about that? >> no, we are not because i keep saying, just to clarify, i told the teddy bear exactly how many shares i have bought. >> that you how it is that the wrong information than was provided to the pcc. >> i believe a come it took a few, there was certain his of information which is not been made public which had led to other people involved in the scandal constructing a story based around the secrets -- sequence of events which you're reading about and total sums of money to reading about and time of purchase of shares they were reading about. and the company felt, for better or for worse, this was information they didn't put in the public domain. it would expose other people involved for telling a false story, which is pretty much what

happened to. >> the difference between the 20,000 pounds and 67,000 pounds of shares was based on the fact that some of the shares were put into your personal equity plan, and the balance of the shares were purchased in your wife's name. have i got that right? >> i think so, yeah. >> can't think of the mode why the should have been provided in the first instance to the bbc. could you help a? >> you have to ask the "trinity mirror." they would want to do that. i have read the adjudication here to remind myself, and i've read why the "trinity mirror" to do. i've tried to outline their reasoning but i think the further details on this you have to ask them. >> may i ask you please about one other entry in your diary.

page 269. 28th of july, 2000 where you say we were offered a transcript of a phone conversation between james hewitt and anna. my moment was addressed and you don't indicate what you kill piers morgan? it appears maybe i don't, i don't know. another call expands on his thoughts saying a hit man who wants to take that for 20,000 pounds. how was this all fleet to the telegraph diary. some bloke from south america

guns me down in soho. why did you say dodgy transcript? >> well, i would have thought somebody planning to assassina assassinate, i think of a hitman as rather dodgy. >> it might be that the dodginess relates to the circumstances which the transcript was obtained, is that not a possibility hear? >> know, because i believe that the dodgy aspect i was referring to actually, i was hoping that this was not an accurate record of the conversation that had taken place. >> okay. can ask you please about paying police officers, is that something which happened at the "daily mirror" whilst you were editor's? >> i have no reason to believe so, no. >> are you saying by that that it was not brought to your

attention to? >> yeah, i've never been made aware of any evidence of that at all. >> can i ask you please to clarify one entry in the diary, not sure actually that we pre-notified you of it, but forgive me if we didn't. it relates to evidence that was given to the culture and media select committee in 2003. do you recall that? >> i recall appearing, yes. >> in your position on that occasion, have i got this right, standards in the tabloid press have improved in the previous few years, is that correct? >> yes. yes. >> and then there were, for the paragraph which i will miss out, then you say later, rebekah

excelled herself by virtually admitting she had been illegally getting information. i called her. she apologized. that's what i should never be seen or heard in public. i'm not going to ask you about that particular sentence, but why do is ask is whether your reference to dropping the tabloid act at the last minute was a general reference or general acceptance illegally paying policemen was a practice which went on in the tabloid press generically? would you agree with that? >> no. >> why did you call the bank for dropping the tabloid back at the last minute? >> because it was getting huge attention in the press and was clearly a mistake. >> in what sense a mistake?

>> i think she accepted it was a mistake but i can't remember at the time but i think -- [inaudible] >> but from our standpoint was a mistake that you should have said it, or was it a mistake because it was untrue? do you see the dissensions? >> i have no idea if it was true or not. >> okay. there's another incident which caught my attention in the insider, when a journalist was put undercover back in the palace for a number of weeks. do you recall that? we might be hearing from him at some stage, the journalist is a mr. ron harry. was that something you organized? >> yes, it was. >> why? >> because on the face it

appeared to be a matter of security breach, involving the royal family which is exactly what it turned out to be. >> well, that's when you instigated, of course, was in its? >> rather after. >> did you publish any stores as a result of this, you did a? >> we did, yet. it led the news for about a week. >> did you feel that was in the public interest? >> absolutely. >> okay. y., tremont? >> well, because we expose a huge series of loopholes in the security system surrounding the senior member of the royal family, which was so easy to expose that we could easily have been a terroristic and if we had been terrorist and not journalists the royal family, sitting members may not be here today. so it's hard to imagine anything more in the public interest than that.

>> okay, sorry to go back in time, i know we're not going and considerable way back in time to the seventh of july, 1994, page 40 of the insider. this is the entry to july 1994. >> yeah. >> this is what you described as an intriguing tale about the fema switchboard operator chat it up, obsessed with him tracking down his address and testing him big time. this is a story which further investigation you didn't publish, is that correct? >> that's right. >> and you explain why that there was evidence that the fema switchboard operator was

psychiatrically disturbed or ill? in the music lots of people break down when we confront them. and lots threaten to kill themselves. was that an accurate statement in your diary? >> yeah. i don't know what i mean by lots but i think is more of a general sense that when people get confronted, you know, they do tend to play that card. >> and then you say there's a difference between women like this. i could not live with myself if we had expose her on page 17, and then she had killed herself. what is the difference of? >> between the pedophile and someone who runs a switchboard? >> yes. >> i would have thought it was self-evident spent but explained to us please in context. >> one is potentially abusing

and raping of children and the other one is manning a switchboard. >> but the pedophile is relevant time are presumably not doing those things, you're exposing them, aren't you? just because they have been pedophiles in the past. >> i certainly think, i sort of think it is something in the public interest to expose pedophiles, yes. >> can you say i'm developed a curious moral code as a good pick sometimes the job feel a bit like pain playing god in pes lives. is that an accurate description in slightly flawed language of what a job of a tabloid newspaper entailed? >> authority speaking, yeah, i think it is. >> and that sort can be a highly destructive instrument, is that

you as we'll? >> yes. >> i've not had any sleepless nights yet, but i can feel them coming. of course it wasn't that much longer, you're only on the news of the work for another 30 months or so before you moved on. but you have caused immense power, did you come in this position, the "news of the world" and in the "daily mirror," and you would agree with that? >> i think the holder of the office of editor, yes. >> did you feel that you had sufficient judgment, the aged 28, two way up difficult issues of the private interest of individuals against the public interest, mr. morgan? >> i did my best. >> well, no doubt you did but did you have the necessary judgment to carry out that exercise, looking back on its? >> i would say that i was

unusually young for a job like that, and i tend to rely on much older, much more expensive people understand who are in valuable. but certainly when i first went in i think it's fair to say that i was, i was pretty young. i was 28. >> when your editor of the "news of the world" i think you pay 250 pounds a week to have it put in the sunday mirror, is that correct? >> the paper did, yes, i believe. >> is that something you knew about? >> i was made aware of it, yes. >> i think you said it's a disgrace of course and totally unethical. would you agree with that? >> probably, yes. >> and there's one example i think which you accept occurred on altering or doctoring photographs, the daily princess, diana photographs which made them look as if they were kissing, is that right?

>> yeah, it was a stupid thing to do. we didn't actually con the public because the picture was exactly the same that would be apparent the next day in a rival paper in our own building but it was a very, very silly thing to have done. and again as result of the introduction of digital photography, and a few papers came improper in that period by you misusing images like that. this is not a good idea. >> can i deal with what your attitude here is perhaps or was and still is to privacy, to go back to when piers met, four pages from the end of this interview.

top right hand corner it says page two of six. the question from ms. campbell is right in the middle of the page. how do you feel about snitches? you sell private information to the papers. do you pay them? the answer yes, papers a snitches. they are disgusting little vermin. who helped to sell papers? yes. there again i agree. but just as papers by the stores it does mean the editors don't think people selling them are horrible. now and has your view of the privacy laws changed? no, because celebrities are the very last people who should be protected by privacy law. they are the ones who use the media the most to sell their privacy for money. were you referring to all

celebrities that are? >> in what context of? >> well, the answer to this question which is put to you. >> i struggle to find this because these are not in order to i'm listening to you rather than reading it can be just identified tactic the paragraph you're talking about? >> yes. it's four pages from the end of this clip or she of pages. and in the top right inside you will see page two of six. or you might say to a seven apparently. it says two of six for my. it depends on how it was pretty because it's quite difficult website to print stuff off. >> i'm reading the two paragraphs, yes. i mean, my view of celebrities and privacy if that's what you're asking is, ever depends i think, i'm sure this will, as a

center point to the inquiry which is how much privacy are you entitled to if you're a famous person or public figure, if you yourself use your privacy for commercial gain? you know, i have, i have very little sympathy for celebrities who sell their weddings for a million pounds. and then expect to have privacy if they're caught having having affairs, for example. it's a nonsensical position to adopt. i have a lot more sympathy with celebrities who just don't do that kind of thing. >> i think you're going a little bit further here, but it may be that you are being wound up by your interlocutor were. all celebrities are not deserving of any sympathy at all because they sell the privacy for money. do you see that? >> i think i said that very last people should be protected by privacy law.

i would put the genre of celebrity last pic the reason is that actually i had the benefit of experiencing both sides of this coin, needy and the celebrity side. and the reality is there are lots of benefits of being a celebrity. many benefits that are not available to ordinary members of the public. and i consider myself extremely fortunate on a daily basis. other celebrities do not consider themselves to be fortunate, and there's a kind of attrition with the media in the sense that you wish to use the need to promote their cells and their brands, televisions and movies but they don't like it to run if it is negative. i just don't think you can have it both ways. >> imagine your attitude to the pcc, the party line which when the inquiry has received from

many is that an adjudication by pcc regarded very seriously, and really a matter of shame. was that an attitude which you had at times, mr. morgan? >> yes. i think that is accurate, yes. >> we have touched on paragraph 34 of their first witness statement, but page 82 of "the insider" please. >> yeah. >> maybe we should take it up at the bottom of page 81. for lines from the bottom. this is a conversation you were having with mr. rupert murdoch. high, piers, how are you, he said cheerily.

fine, thanks, boss to really enjoyed you humiliating me. instead i said i was in great shape. the paper was in great shape and while everything is in great shape it should rest in the chico. one thing i've learned is that he really doesn't want to hear you wincing so there's no point going down that road. he just wants her precisely how you intend to smash the opposition into oblivion. is that more or less correct, at least regards your state of mind, mr. morgan? >> from a business point of view, yes. >> and then what you attribute to them is i'm sorry about all that press complaining thingamajig, he said to my astonishment. is that what mr. murdoch said? >> well, that was my memory of it years later, yet. i would say it was a word for word because i don't have a recording of it. >> the thingamajig part, is,

does that time with what you call in having said? >> it was my memory. the fact that he couldn't remember in that moment the exact wording, i wouldn't read too much into it. >> right, but your state of mind though, and this has continued with you, was one of astonishment, wasn't it? >> well, i mean obvious again in the background for this, the front page which i had created which got me into trouble, and for which i take full responsibility, had only come about because the page i wanted mr. murdoch had effectively suggested wouldn't be a good idea. >> so there you might not remember precise words used when didn't expect as one does remember one feeling or emotion when something is said.

you said you astonishment, so that must've been your state of mind when he answered whatever he did answer, would you agree with that? >> you know, i think he was kind of taken aback by the serious skill of the coverage of the issue. it was the first time he ever made a statement against anything of that nature. and i was getting kicked all over the place, and he knew i was very young. he knew that i was probably slightly impetuous, i had made a dumb decision that night, which i had, changing the front page at the last moment. and i think that he wanted to express a sense of understanding that, and he didn't. >> and danger diary continued, he definitely used the word sorry eric that's right, isn't it? >> i believe so, yup. >> or just have a use in the diary but you're quite categorical about his answer. >> as i say this is 1995, so i would've written this in 2005, 10 years later. so it's the best my memory

serves it. >> and it was clear by his failure to even remember the name of the press complaints commission that he doesn't really give a talk about it. so that's what, that was the message he left you with, wasn't it? >> well, it was my assumption of the message, me, that may not be his recollection. >> i'm not asking you for his recollection. i can ask him for his recollection when we get there. i'm asking you for yours. that was the impression he left you with, wasn't it? >> yes, that was how i saw it. >> and i was also really the culture in the "news of the world," i would suggest then, the mayor as well, people didn't give a tussle about the bbc, did they? >> no, absolutely they did it. >> they did. okay. may i cover the masses which are

outside not only one, but your voice bring you back, i just want you to confirm, mr. morgan, we haven't won to others, the difficulty you will let me know, but the question i promise you are innocuous, at least they don't require you to do more than agree or disagree with what i have to put to you. how many face-to-face meetings did you have with tony blair? in 2009, the number you gave was 56, is that correct? >> that was one on one, just he and i, yeah. >> just you and him? >> yeah. >> you deal in "the insider," page 93, with -- >> sorry. just to clarify that. occasionally miss campbell might